[Stoves] Calculating cooking costs and char costs ----Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Sat Sep 16 17:49:57 CDT 2017
tom,
This quote is from Pam Jagger's article, and cites Ryan.
> We assume that dry mass can be converted to carbon mass using 47%C
> (Ryan et al., 2011),
What does " 47%C " actually mean? That is not the same as "%
yield of charcoal compared to dry-weight of biomass"
Who can explain such a process with such a high yield of charcoal? I
did not think that it is possible, unless it is a bit beyond torrified wood.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 9/16/2017 12:05 PM, tmiles at trmiles.com [biochar] wrote:
>
> We could estimate the potential carbon products and benefits (or
> costs) from TLUDs using known data from TLUD efficiency tests and real
> examples. For example, what impact could a TLUD have on the scenario
> tested in the work in Malawi that was posted yesterday by Pam Jagger?
>
> “Similarly, the average amount of fuelwood collected was estimated at
> 1878 kg per year per household, or 187,800 kg of fuelwood per year per
> village. We relate the fuelwood use in kilograms to hectares to better
> quantify the regional forest impact. From the rural exposure
> monitoring data set, we find the average moisture content of the fuel
> (woody miombo biomass) to be 10%. Beginning with the baseline fuelwood
> use of 187,800 kg of fuelwood per year per village, if we assume a 10%
> moisture content, the baseline fuelwood is equivalent to 170,700 kg of
> dry fuelwood. We assume that dry mass can be converted to carbon mass
> using 47%C (Ryan et al., 2011), resulting in 80,240 kgC per year per
> village. A study of carbon stocks in miombo woodland in Mozambique
> found that woody biomass totaled 33.3 tC/ha (Ryan et al., 2011). If we
> assume similar composition of woodland, we find that the baseline case
> results in a miombo woodland deforestation rate of approximately 2.41
> ha per year per village.”
>
> What impact could a TLUD have on 1878 kg/household per year? How much
> biochar/charcoal would be produced and at what value?
>
> Health Alert: Reading Pam’s paper could raise Nikhil’s blood pressure.
> : - )
>
> Tom
>
> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca
> *Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 10:00 PM
> *To:* biochar at yahoogroups.com; ndesai at alum.mit.edu; 'Discussion of
> biomass' <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Cc:* hsmclaughlin at verizon.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Calculating cooking costs and char costs
> ----Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown
>
> Hi Paul
>
> *From:*biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 11:03 PM
> *To:* biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>;
> ndesai at alum.mit.edu <mailto:ndesai at alum.mit.edu>; 'Discussion of
> biomass cooking stoves' <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
> *Cc:* 'Hugh McLaughlin' <hsmclaughlin at verizon.net
> <mailto:hsmclaughlin at verizon.net>>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Calculating cooking costs and char costs
> ----Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and drawdown
>
> Kevin,
>
> Note also that the purpose of this particular Spread Sheet was to
> give an approximate value to char produced by TLUD’s.
>
> In that regard, char value is a function of char yield and biomass
> fuel cost.
>
> # Yes.
>
> The number of meals cooked would not then an issue, and the
> spreadsheet contains cells that are derived but are not part of the
> "solution." Too much "extra" that is not needed in the spreadsheet.
>
> # The way the spread sheet really works is to determine net available
> energy, (after drying losses) and then proportions the fuel cost
> between the energy in the TLUD fuel gas, and the energy in the char. I
> added the “number of meals” so that the Cook would see the cost
> consequences of burning the char as an additional source of energy, to
> reduce the need to purchase additional fuel. However, you are quite
> right… it is not really necessary to know the number of meals cooked
> per unit of fuel, to determine the value of char.
>
> # The way the spread sheet is set up now, all the energy loss
> associated with water in the incoming fuel is credited to the TLUD gas
> stream. The result is a (slightly) overstated cost for the energy
> content of the TLUD gas, and a (slightly) understated cost of the
> char. The error could be significant with significantly higher
> moisture content of the incoming wood fuel.
>
>
>
> If the purpose is to bring in also the number of meals, then there is
> more work to be done. Forexample, it is not as simple as the
> assumption that energy needed per meal served would be the same for
> cooking with the pyrolytic gases as for cooking with the charcoal fuel.
>
> # Agreed. However, the spread sheet does appear to give a good
> “initial value for char” in relation to the value of carbon credit
> payments. If wood fuel costs were much lower, and/or carbon credit
> payments were much higher, then a more rigorous treatment would be
> required to determine the “Break Even Carbon Credit Payment more
> accurately.
>
> Therefore the spreadsheet contains too few actual "variables", most
> of which could be strongly impacted by the socio-cultural context.
> This would be not enough "extra" that should be put into the spreadsheet.
>
> # A more rigorous spread sheet could indeed be built, but it would
> require a number of additional inputs. Such additional inputs would
> include:
>
> * Wood analysis
>
> * Calorific value
>
> * Moisture content
>
> * Energy content of the pyrolytic gas stream
>
> * Pyrolytic gas combustion efficiency
>
> * Pyrolytic gas stove efficiency
>
> * Accurate charcoal yield
>
> * Calorific value of charcoal
>
> * Charcoal combustion efficiency
>
> * Charcoal stove efficiency
>
> * Etc.
>
>
> You have made your point that it is possible that the value of the
> char from a TLUD stove might be greater if burned than if sequestered
> into soil as biochar. This can be discussed in general terms. It
> will not be resolved with a refined quantitative / financial
> analysis. The question remains open: How is the value of char from a
> more efficient cookstove (TLUD vs 3-stone) to be judged?
>
> # Actually, I would suggest that the present spread sheet would be an
> excellent tool for determining the value of char from a TLUD, a
> 3-Stone Fire, or other cooking system. You could set up a very simple
> test cooking rice sufficient for say 4 meals, and measure the wood
> required, and the charcoal recovered. Knowing the cost of the fuel per
> unit, the data could be entered into the spread sheet to give a value
> for the char produced from various stove systems.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email:psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com>
>
> On 9/15/2017 5:35 PM, kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca
> <mailto:kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca> [biochar] wrote:
>
> Hi Nikhil
>
> I used the term “mealtime” more in the context of a “cooking
> session”. Clearly, a number of meals would be required at “mealtime.”
>
> Knowing the number of meals prepared at the “mealtime”, one can
> then determine the wood consumption per meal, and ultimately, the
> “energy per meal.”
>
> Note also that the “energy per meal” must be used with caution, in
> that it will vary with the nature of the meal. For example, a meal
> of rice and fish could require a different cooking time than when
> simmering a stew or boiling eggs.
>
> Note also that the purpose of this particular Spread Sheet was to
> give an approximate value to char produced by TLUD’s. Would you
> have any further comments or suggestions in how to improve it in
> this regard?
>
> Thanks, and Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
> *From:*Nikhil Desai [mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 6:09 PM
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Cc:* kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca <mailto:kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca>;
> biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>; Hugh McLaughlin
> <hsmclaughlin at verizon.net> <mailto:hsmclaughlin at verizon.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Calculating cooking costs and char costs
> ----Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND CARBON offsets and
> drawdown
>
> Paul:
>
> Two comments:
>
> 1. If "mealtime" refers to a day (and 3 cooked meals per day), 1
> kg wood per day seems to be on the low side, unless it is per
> capita. I remember that a "rule of thumb" (or "expert estimate")
> back when people prepared national energy balances, was "1-2 kg
> wood _per capita_ per day". Of course, the gross input per family
> depends on many factors including efficiency, types of cooking
> tasks, age/sex composition, ambient temperature and wind patterns,
> and cook's whims; however, if the per family net energy per
> mealtime is 3.7 kWht or 5,750 Btu, I suspect the family may be too
> poor to afford enough food from scratch - relying on more fresh
> vegetables or uncooked materials or on partially prepared
> purchased food.
>
> This single number -- how much useful (net) energy per family per
> year is "required" on average in a given context - would seem to
> be very useful, with some assumed efficiencies, for computations
> of emissions and deforestation or loads carried on heads or backs.
> But I have seen very few such attempts. Any thoughts? I will dig
> up some GACC studies.
>
> 2. The way the spreadsheet is set up, the financial cost of
> fuelwood is the most critical assumed parameter for the breakeven
> carbon credit value (CCV). Only at $0.02/kg cost of high-quality
> wood does the CCV come close to today's price in the EU ETS. Since
> the supply curves for both wood and labor are likely to at least
> somewhat upward sloping, the question becomes, what is the
> potential - in global terms - for biochar to compete with other
> CDR options?
>
> It would seem that biochar for CDR and charmaking for local sales
> (as fuel) are two entirely separate markets and will probably
> remain that way for a long while.
>
> Does anybody have a good number for useful cooking energy per
> household per year?
>
> Nikhil
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Paul Anderson
> <psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
>
> Kevin,
>
> Thanks for the spreadsheet. This is an interesting situation
> where calculated numbers are not matching with some human
> activities about the value of charcoal.
>
> This discussion is only with the Biochar group, so I am adding
> the Stoves Listserv and attaching the spreadsheet.
>
> Notes;
>
> The use of BTU/LB in columns H and I should be in the green
> (calculated) values and the corresponding metric units (which
> you provide) should be the yellow variables that can be
> entered. Please.
>
> I notice that changes in the Value of unburned char/kg (C23 )
> is essentially linked to the cost of fuel wood (C5) , and
> therefore virtually dictate the conclusion of carbon credit
> pricing needed (C28 ). So, the price stays quite high.
>
> ****************
> A. Consider the case of the cook who has no real use for the
> char, which means that the cost of fuel is 100% allocated to
> the cooking, and the resultant char has zero value. To that
> cook there is no trade-off about char being used for cooking
> other meals. Selling the char is "pure profit", whether it is
> a calculated value of $0.16/kg (as in C26) or merely $0.12/kg
> as in Deganga, India, or only $0.08/kg which is still better
> than nothing.
>
> B. Current "traditional" cooking with charcoal that is
> produced by generally inefficient "traditional" char-making
> methods would have a char yield (C6) of between 10% (burning
> too much to ash) and 25% (leaving volatiles in the char, or
> even some incomplete pyrolysis/torrification).
>
> C. But for those people who produce traditional char, the
> "cost of fuel wood" (C5) could be as low as zero (illegal
> cutting or destructive cutting) or some notional value of the
> time spent to make the charcoal.
>
> Others need to comment also.
>
> Paul
>
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>
> Email:psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
>
> Skype: paultlud Phone:+1-309-452-7072 <tel:%28309%29%20452-7072>
>
> Website:www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com>
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Pa
>
> *From:*biochar at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>[mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com]
>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 11, 2017 4:02 PM
> *To:* Hugh McLaughlin <hsmclaughlin at verizon.net>
> <mailto:hsmclaughlin at verizon.net>;
> biochar at yahoogroups.com <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES AND
> CARBON offsets and drawdown
>
> Hugh and Kevin,
>
> First to Hugh: Why do you write
>
> $0.10/kg is a more reasonable assumption.
>
> when that is what Kevin actually said.
>
> Then to Kevin: Actually, it the char yield is 20% per
> kg of fuel (closer to actual than is 25% or 30%), then
> the number becomes $US 250 per tonne of char =
> $US250/3.42 = $US 73.10 per tonne of CO2 equivalent.
>
> To all: As reported in the Deganga Case Study (page
> 4, 3rd paragraph), in that case study the people *were
> actually paying US$0.075 per kg of firewood.* And they
> burn 3 to 4 kg per day (which is less than half of
> baseline fuel consumption). Note: 4 kg of firewood at
> 20% char yield would be about 0.8 kg of char per day
> (matches the measured quantities of char purchased
> from the households).
>
> And they were receiving payment of $0.12 per kg of
> char via the "Earn while you cook" arrangements (page
> 4, second paragraph from the bottom of the page),
> which would be $0.04 per 0.3 kg (just citing Kevin's
> initial number for some comparison) or $0.024 per 0.2
> kg (the approximate actual char production per day of
> cooking.).
>
> Can we use some of these above numbers and send a
> revised statement, please?
>
> And if the point is still
>
> it is more advantageous for the Cook to burn it
> [the char] for another meal.
>
> then why are the people so delighted with the
> charcoal buyback? ( ?? cultural reasons??? such as
> not having a tradition of cooking with charcoal at the
> household level (true) ... or their perception of
> the value of a few cents is greater than their
> perception of the expense of the cooking task? ... or
> some other reason(s) ???
>
> All are welcome to comment, please.
>
> Paul
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>
> Email:psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
>
> Skype: paultlud Phone:+1-309-452-7072 <tel:%28309%29%20452-7072>
>
> Website:www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com>
>
> On 9/11/2017 1:22 PM, Hugh McLaughlin wrote:
>
> ERRATA: $10/tonne is $0.01/kg.
>
> If there is any transportation, $100/tonne or the
> basis used for the calculation: $0.10/kg is a more
> reasonable assumption.
>
> Hugh McLaughlin, PhD, PE
>
> CTO - NextChar.com
>
> On Monday, September 11, 2017 2:03 PM,
> "kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca [biochar]"
> <mailto:kchisholm at seaside.ns.ca[biochar]><biochar at yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>wrote:
>
> Hi Paul
>
> Assume that such fuelwood costs $US10 per tonne,
> or $US.10 per kg.
>
> Assume that 1 kg of such wood is “burned” in a
> TLUD, to cook a meal, and that there is .25 kg
> char yield.
>
> Assume also that the char could be used to cook a
> second meal.
>
> The cost of fuel per meal is thus $US.10, if the
> char is not used for cooking, OR, it is $US.05 if
> the char is subsequently used to cook a second meal.
>
> Thus, if somebody gave the Cook $US.05 for the .3
> kg of char, the Cook could be “revenue neutral”.
>
> Thus, the cost of “Carbon Credits” that reaches
> the actual Cook should be a minimum of $US.05/.3
> kg char = $US.167 per kg char, or $US167 per tonne
> char = $US167/3.42 = approximately $US48.80 per
> tonne of CO2 equivalent.
>
> CONCLUSION: With the costing and performance
> assumptions shown above, unless the Cook gets more
> than the equivalent of $US48.80 per tonne CO2
> carbon credits, it is not advantageous for the
> Cook to “sell” the char… it is more advantageous
> for the Cook to burn it for another meal.
>
> Does this make sense to you?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin
>
> *From:*biochar at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>[mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com]
>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 11, 2017 11:53 AM
> *To:* biochar at yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>; Doc Anderson
> <psanders at ilstu.edu> <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [biochar] Where to discuss STOVES
> AND CARBON offsets and drawdown
>
> Dear Shengar,
>
> Thank you for the input.
>
> World figures are that about 3 billion persons
> have meals prepared on solid fuel (mostly
> biomass). Family size (especially HOUSEHOLD size,
> referring to the number of people who eat
> together) should be 5 or 6, which would put the
> number of households between 600 million and 500
> million. Those are the numbers that I prefer to use.
>
> I agree with nearly a kilo of char produced per
> day per TLUD stove (confirmed in Deganga, India,
> study). 365 days would yield about a third of on
> ton of char per household. 3 household become a
> ton/yr. 30,000 HH would be 10,000 tons.
> 300,000,000 HH (about half of the needed
> cookstoves) would be 100,000,000 tons.
>
> So it would take 10 years to reach one GIGA ton,
> which is 1,000,000,000 tons. (Please check my math.)
>
> In the Drawdown project, the time period is 2020
> to2050, which is 3 decade, or "potentially" 3
> gigatons of char sequestration.
>
> 3 GT is only 1/5th of the GT calculated for ALL
> cookstoves, and over 3 times more that what was
> calcualted for ALL biochar by 2050. Clearly there
> is more to the drawdown calculations than the
> simple numbers above.
>
> Paul
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
>
> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> <tel:%28309%29%20452-7072>
>
> Website: www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>
>
> On 9/11/2017 1:27 AM, shengar shengar at aol.com
> <mailto:shengar at aol.com>[biochar] wrote:
>
> The ballpark numbers I think Albert Bates has
> crunched but I play with these numbers:
>
> About 1 billion households cook with biomass,
> so if all had TLUDs, producing about a kilo
> per day of biochar that would be some one
> million tons per day, 365 million tons per
> year, a gigaton of CO2 every 3 years.
> (accounting for other greenhouse gas
> reductions when biochar is put in soil)
> And increased rates of soil carbon sequestration
>
> On Sep 10, 2017 at 9:29 AM, <Paul Anderson
> psanders at ilstu.edu [biochar]
> <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Stovers and Biochar folk,
>
> The financial part of advancing the TLUD
> stove situation (IMO) keeps coming back to
> the value of carbon offsets generated. But
> that topic is too thinly related to the
> purpose of the Stoves Listserv or the
> Biochar Listserve. So I will sending this
> message.
>
> The _stoves-related carbon-issues
> discussion _(generating carbon credits,
> global drawdown, etc) need discussion. So
> I request some assistance to find where
> this can be discussed. Does such a place
> already exist?
>
> Also, who among us want to be into that
> OTHER discussion? Paul, Ron, and who else?
>
> Paul
>
> --
>
> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S.
> Anderson, PhD
>
> Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
> <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
>
> Skype: paultlud Phone:
> +1-309-452-7072 <tel:%28309%29%20452-7072>
>
> Website: www.drtlud.com
> <http://www.drtlud.com/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our
> web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
> __._,_.___
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted by: <tmiles at trmiles.com>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reply via web post
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/messages/22176;_ylc=X3oDMTJydTBtNzQwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMyMjE3NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzE1MDU1ODE1NDk-?act=reply&messageNum=22176>
> • Reply to sender
> <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com?subject=RE%3A%20%5BStoves%5D%20Calculating%20cooking%20costs%20and%20char%20costs%20----Re%3A%20%5Bbiochar%5D%20Where%20to%20discuss%20STOVES%20AND%20CARBON%20offsets%20and%20drawdown>
> • Reply to group
> <mailto:biochar at yahoogroups.com?subject=RE%3A%20%5BStoves%5D%20Calculating%20cooking%20costs%20and%20char%20costs%20----Re%3A%20%5Bbiochar%5D%20Where%20to%20discuss%20STOVES%20AND%20CARBON%20offsets%20and%20drawdown>
> • Start a New Topic
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdTY5dm4xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE1MDU1ODE1NDk->
> • Messages in this topic
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/conversations/topics/22173;_ylc=X3oDMTM3c3VhY2IzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRtc2dJZAMyMjE3NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzE1MDU1ODE1NDkEdHBjSWQDMjIxNzM->
> (4)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Have you tried the highest rated email app? <https://yho.com/1wwmgg>
> With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated
> email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access
> all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never
> delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit Your Group
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmM3RpbTBnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE1MDU1ODE1NDk->
>
>
> * New Members
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOXZndHV1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxNTA1NTgxNTQ5>
> 1
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYnQ0aGgxBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIyNDM4MDUyBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNzQxODYxMgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTUwNTU4MTU0OQ-->
>
> • Privacy
> <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
> Unsubscribe
> <mailto:biochar-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> •
> Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170916/b243af9d/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list